From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Wed May 2 09:50:52 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:50:52 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: CSE views on Delhi CNG public transport saga Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F2F9@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: webadmin@cseindia.org [mailto:webadmin@cseindia.org] Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2001 4:57 To: CSE-LIST@listserv.cseindia.org Subject: What's new at CSE, India ***************************************************************** A fortnightly electronic news bulletin from CSE, India to a network of friends and professionals interested in environmental issues. We send this to people who we believe are involved in sustainable development initiatives. You are welcome to unzubscribe yourself, if you so choose, just scroll down to the bottom of this page. ***************************************************************** What's new at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, India. THE DAY THE GOVERNMENT FAILED Governance collapsed on April 1, 2001 as Delhi was abandoned to chaos following the failure of the public transport system to switch to CNG in accordance with the Supreme Court's orders. Even as politicians and officials indulged in a slugging match the citizen suffered for the mess they had created. Read more click the link below http://www.cseindia.org/html/dte/dte20010430/dte_srep2.htm ------------------------------------------------- .... other items snipped ..... ------------------------------------------------- A message from the Chairperson, Anil Agarwal: SINHA'S TRICK WHILE all those orders of the Supreme Court (SC) directed towards the corporate sector - public or private - have largely resulted in action, orders to the government - state or central - have usually resulted in total chaos. In April 1999, when the SC gave the auto industry just about two months to move its engines to Euro I and about 11 months to move to Euro II, the industry met the deadlines. Similarly, the petroleum industry has repeatedly improved petrol and diesel quality as per SC orders. The little improvement that we already see in air quality in Delhi is partly because of this. In 1998, diesel contained as much as 10,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulphur but today it is down to 500 ppm. The key problem is that both the state and Central government had no political will to implement the SC order on CNG. Dealing with the order, made 31 months ago, was quite an easy task if only a few key steps were taken. Firstly, as the matter involves the Delhi government and the Petroleum, Surface Transport and Environment ministries of the Central government, a coordination committee should have been set up to ensure smooth implementation. Both Sheila Dikshit, chief minister of the Delhi, and prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee should have worked together to ensure that such a mechanism was established. But each agency worked out of sync with the other. Secondly, as the management of the process of conversion required technical competence on auto emissions, technology and health effects and as generalist bureaucrats have no understanding of these matters, a technical team should have been put in place to advise the government. In the absence of this advice, the Delhi government has remained consistently confused and has allowed every vested interest to take it for a ride. Both Lt Governor Vijai Kapoor and transport minister Pervez Hashmi have repeatedly made statements questioning the viability of CNG on the basis of some paper or the other sent to them by various interest groups including anonymous sources. If such expertise was not available within India, the Delhi government could have even obtained the services of some foreign experts - just as it commissioned a British consultant to prepare a study on industrial relocation with foreign aid. Even environment minister T R Baalu could have set up such a technical committee but did nothing of the sort. As a result, there has been confusion galore. Delhi government's positions have been exactly the same as those of auto majors who do not wish to see a changeover to CNG. While Hashmi and Dikshit have repeatedly harped on CNG technology being experimental in their public statements. On the other hand, on the day Sheila Dikshit was in court, the government lawyer accepted that CNG technology is not experimental and the government was committed to the task. Delhi government's confusion gave a clear signal that it was not serious about the Court's order. Allowing thousands of diesel buses to come on to the roads even weeks before the Supreme Court deadline shows that the government never wanted to implement the order and fervently hoped that the threat of a crisis, which it did everything in its ability to precipitate, would force the Court to back down. Unfortunately, for the Delhi government, the Court did not. The third critical issue was finance. It was clear from the start that this transformation would need investments to be made by very small bus, taxi and auto operators. Three steps could have been taken to help these operators. Firstly, every effort should have been made to bring in as many manufacturers and conversion agents in India and abroad so that there was effective competition. But no advertisement was taken out in international newspapers and rules were set in a way that companies could not follow easily, thus ensuring that many companies could not participate. The result is market monopoly and high prices. Hashmi keeps harping that such a big effort to convert to CNG has not been made elsewhere. But he did not try to turn this to the city's advantage. The government could have easily pooled all the orders of the Delhi Transport Corporation and private transporters and then made the companies compete thus ensuring quality and low cost. But by letting the one-two bus and auto operators negotiate separately with the companies, Hashmi left them to the mercy of the wolves in the market. Not surprisingly, there have even been public allegations that this was deliberately manipulated for pecuniary reasons. A few years ago, several European city authorities, across different countries, pooled their orders to buy zero-emission buses for use in historic city centres to avoid pollution and got a big discount. If cities across nations can pool their order why couldn't we do it in one city? Poor transport operators could have been helped even further. Though Delhi is the richest state of India, it has a diesel price lower than other metros. An additional sales tax of Re 1 in 1999 and 2000 would have fetched about Rs. 300 crore. This sum is so large that the government could have even given away some 3,000 retrofitted buses free. It is clear that neither the Delhi government nor the Central government had any respect for the court order nor any desire to implement it. The government had no respect for the Supreme Court's order or the desire to implement it - Anil Agarwal (This article is also available online at http://www.cseindia.org/html/dte/dte20010430/dte_edit.htm) ************************************************* Visit our website at www.cseindia.org and check out what's new. Our website carries our science and environment fortnightly Down To Earth, a daily environment news flash by subject categories, a catalog of books and publications that are available, and all of our recent press releases. We also give regular updates on all of our campaigns on topics like vehicular pollution, climate change, biodiversity, water resources, wildlife, forests, environment education etc. Our online library of books, journals, images and videos is searchable through a thesaurus of environmental keywords at http://data.cseindia.org We are also looking for reciprocal linking to other website in this area. Let us know your website address and we would be happy to link to you. Please feel free to forward this message to other interested individuals. Past archives of this bulletin are available at http://www.cseindia.org/html/au/au6.htm ... **************************************************************** * NOTE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS: PLEASE NOTE IT AS FOLLOWS * **************************************************************** CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT ( CSE ) 41, TUGHLAKABAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI- 110 062 TELE: 608 1110, 608 1124 608 3394, 608 6399 FAX : 91-11-608 5879 VISIT US AT: http://www.cseindia.org Email: webadmin@cseindia.org **************************************************************** From sujit at vsnl.com Fri May 4 14:28:15 2001 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:58:15 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Roads in the Riverbed: District Court Throws out PMC's Appeal Message-ID: <4.0.1.20010504102735.00eacc50@202.54.10.1> 3 May 2001 To Sustran discussion-list members, I thought you may be interested in reading about our recent sucess in preventing the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) from going ahead with their disastrous plan of constructing roads in the riverbed of the Mutha river in Pune, India. With good wishes, -- Sujit Patwardhan -------------------------------------------- 3 May 2001 Dear Friend, As you may have read in today's Times of India (Thursday 3rd May 2001) page 3, Pune Municipal Corporation's Appeal in the District Court against the order of the Municipal Court restraining PMC from constructing roads and parking lots in the Mutha riverbed, was thrown out by the District Court. This is a major victory for environmental and citizens' groups who have all along opposed the construction of roads and parking lots in the Mutha riverbed. Although Parisar was the litigant in this specific case it was because of the active support of all the other groups and individuals who took time to attend the hearings, mobilized public opinion and supported the cause of the environment of the Pune city that we have won this battle. We would like to thank all of you for your support and feel confident that even in future, whenever the environment is threatened, all groups will come together as one entity and thwart the attempt. We hope that the PMC will ensure that in future it is not led astray by vested interests and irresponsible elected representatives who continue to act against the wider public interest by promoting such destructive schemes without concern for the long term good of the city. We also hope that PMC will use this opportunity to earnestly implement the River Improvement Scheme by ensuring that the river has a minimum water flow throughout the year (as per recommendations of the Planning Commission for the 9th Five Year Plan, and as per the order of the Courts in case of Yamuna waters in Delhi), installation of primary sewage treatment plants at a dozen points along the riverbank which will stop pollutants entering the river water, slum rehabilitation along the riverbank to stop pollution, and to ensure that solid wastes are not dumped into the river. As for the submersible road already constructed in the riverbed, as predicted by many, it will be washed away during the monsoons, but to prevent misuse amounting to contempt of court, the entry points to these roads should be immediately sealed by erecting barriers to prevent motorized vehicles entering the roads. Only pedestrians and cycles should have access to these roads. In the context of traffic management and formulation of a city-wide traffic and transportation plan (which we have been demanding for a long time), this would serve as a healthy precedence for recognizing the rights of non-polluting modes of travel like walking and cycling and eventually we hope all major roads will have provisions for safe cycling tracks. It is time that views of concerned citizens and citizens' groups are taken into account when planning the city's development on a sustainable and long term basis. With good wishes, Sujit Patwardhan (Parisar), Vijay Paranjpye (Gomukh) PS: For those who may be interested in going through our views on the roads in the river-bed we are enclosing the article: "Threat to Mutha River" dated 19 March 2000, circulated when this proposal was officially announced for the first time, just over a year back. 19 March 2000 Threat to Mutha River In what can only be described as the most destructive project EVER undertaken by the Pune Municipal corporation, we are today witnessing the deliberate, wanton and cold blooded murder of the Mutha river. This project, which is being pushed through despite the strong opposition voiced repeatedly by experts, planners, environmentalists and citizens as well as the majority of the independent members of the Mutha River Improvement Project Committee set up by the PMC itself not only violates existing National and International environmental regulations but it also in contravention of the Development Plan which has recognized the river as a vital and important feature of the city and demarcated it as a "no development zone". The Background The original proposal for Mutha River Improvement was initiated sometime in 1997-98 during Shri Ramanath Jha's tenure as the Municipal Commissioner. This proposal consisted of Desalting, removal of debris, prevention of pollution, plans for completion of central channel, and construction of a submersible road of 500 meters length on an experimental basis. The manner in which the proposal was introduced, the absence of detailed objectives and modality of inviting proposals through a competition without preparing a detailed brief let to widespread criticism from architects, citizens groups and concerned individuals who rightly felt that a project dealing with such a precious asset of the city should include for more details about the objectives, costs, environmental impact and most of all involvement of the public before inviting proposals from architects, planners etc. There was also a very strong reaction to the "submersible road" even though it was described as experimental. Several representations were made to the Municipal Commissioner for discussing this proposal in detail but the Commissioner did not call the concerned individuals/groups for such a discussion and merely gave vague answers about what the PMC wanted to achieve in the River Improvement Project - while going ahead with awarding of the contract to one of the contestants. A day long seminar was organized under the auspices of the Pune Management Association at the Poona Club where experts from different fields presented papers and discussed various aspects of the project. Noted architect Shri Balkrishna Doshi, Hydrogeologist Dr. Mukund Ghare, Dr. Madhav Godbole (IAS Retired) Dr. Vijay Paranjpye (Economist) Ms Vandana Chavan (Corporator and Mayor) and many others concerned about the river were present. Presentations were also made by representatives of the PMC, PCMC, The Pune River Group (who had been awarded the contract) to enable the participants to understand the issue in detail. Shri Ramanath Jha, Municipal Commissioner was also invited but did not attend. The consensus of this workshop/seminar was that priority should be given to clean the river, stop pollution and sewage from entering its flow, and to increase the flow of water in the river throughout the year. There was an equally clear and unambiguous agreement that there should be no commercial activity of any kind within the river banks and emphatically - that there should be no submersible roads at any cost. Although these recommendations were sent to Shri Jha there was no official response from him. Some months later another meeting was held at Thermax House, Pune where experts, environmentalists, representatives from industry and officials from PMC, PCMC were present - including Shri Ramanath Jha. Commissioner PMC and Shri Pravin Kumar Pardeshi, Municipal Commissioner PCMC. In this meeting also there was a consensus that commercial activity including roads should NOT be allowed, the river should be free from pollution and the discharge of water should be maintained at the minimum designed level at least - throughout the year. Shri Jha claimed that road was not being planned as part of the River Improvement Scheme although he was not able to substantiate this when it was pointed out to him that road rollers were presently engaged in what looked like a road. Another seminar was organized at the Mahratta Chamber of Commerce and Industries by which time Shri Rajiv Agarwal had taken over as the Municipal Commissioner. Later during Shri Agarwal's tenure the elected body of the PMC voted to reject the entire project for various reasons including suspected irregularities, possible corruption and inflated and exorbitant costs. A new advisory committee was then set up with a view to reframe the entire project. Several meetings were held, parameters finalised and proposals invited from architects planners etc. After reviewing these in two meetings the committee came to the conclusion that although many good ideas/concepts were received from different participants, no single proposal had the potential for providing a design for the entire project. Hence it was decided that various concepts proposed in different entries should be used in the actual design of the project. It may be pertinent to note that almost all the entries had proposed cleaning of the river, greening its banks and minimum intrusion by man-made structures. Even those few who proposed roads or a accepted the existence of the stretch of the road already built on an experimental basis, have stipulated that these should be open only to pedestrians and occasional service vehicle if at all. Inspite of such a clear verdict to prohibit roads and other commercial activity within the river bank it is shocking that the PMC it its meeting on 19 February, 2000, ignoring the strong objections of independent members of the advisory committee took the totally undemocratic decision to build roads and parking lots within the river bank. When majority of the independent citizen's members insisted that their opposition should be recorded in the minutes, the Municipal Commissioner, and two elected representatives of the PMC (Shri Ujwal Keskar and Prof. Mathkari both corporators) took the unusual step of announcing that the proposal for the road and parking was being deleted from the agenda, forestalling adverse opinion of independent members from being recorded. The following members present at this meeting have recorded their opposition to the proposal for roads and parking lots in the river bank Dr. Mukund Ghare (Hydrogeologist) Dr. Vijay Paranjpye (Economist & Chairman, Econet), Shri Sharad Mahajan (Architect & Planner), Shri Prasanna Desai Architect & Planner), Shri Sujit Patwardhan (Secretary, Parisar and Member Heritage Committee, PMC and Member Heritage Committee Mahabaleshwar Panchgani), Ms. Pratima Joshi (Shelter Associates). Following members of the committee though not present at this meeting have sent letters to the PMC Commissioner recording their opposition to roads, parking lots and commercial development within the river bank - Dr. Mira Bapat (Urban Planner) Dr. R. Bellare (Environment Expert) The representative from CWPRS. -- Sujit Patwardhan Hon. Secretary ----------------------- PARISAR Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 022 5537955 Fax: 022 4457354 ----------------------- From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 8 23:10:31 2001 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:10:31 +0200 Subject: [sustran] World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol 7, No. 1 -- quarterly announcement Message-ID: The Journal of World Transport Policy & Practice, a quarterly journal edited by John Whitelegg and e-published by The Commons, is pleased to announce that Volume 7, Number 1, 2001 has just been just placed on the Journal site at http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm as a 1,2 Mo PDF file. You are welcome to browse the site for back issues. (A smaller text only version of 7-1 will be posted to the site within the next 24 hours.) This latest edition of the Journal is available free of charge as Adobe Acrobat PDF files on the Internet at [http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm]. This policy of open distribution is intended help it to reach a wider readership, encompassing advocates and activists as well as academics and advisers. While the Journal is made freely available on the Web, institutional subscribers and individuals with good salaries are asked to support the Journal through voluntary subscriptions as explained on the site. These contributions help us to make the journal available freely to students and people working in the developing countries who otherwise would find the $120 annual an insuperable barrier. Below, please find further details. You may also wish to have a look at the Today! edition of this date at www.carfreeday.com or http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp which carries the lead editorial of the Journal and further background. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CONTENTS of Volume 7, Number 1, 2001: o Editorial, J. Whitelegg o I Quit, Patrick Kinnersly o Walking & cycling - does common neglect equal common interests?, Philine Gaffron o The Safety & Security issues of Women drivers & passengers, Andr?e Woodcock, James Lenard & Ruth Welsh o The effects of car sharing on travel behaviour: analysis of CarSharing Portland's first year, Richard Katzev, David Brook & Matthew Nice o Private vehicle restraint measures - Lessons for India, K.S. Nesamani & Kaushik Deb o Pedestrian flow characteristics at an intermodal transfer terminal in Calcutta, A.K. Sarkar & K.S.V.S. Janardhan o Book Review ABSTRACTS of articles: I Quit - Patrick Kinnersly Patrick Kinnersly has been campaigning for sane, safe, integrated transport for most of the 1990s in Southern England. He has realised that regardless of the strength of his argument, the Government has chosen to ignore him and others and continue with the discredited 'predict and provide' approach to transport infrastructure. Here we publish his open letter to Halcrow, the consultants contracted by the Government to conduct the London to South West & South Wales Multi-Modal Study. . Walking & cycling - does common neglect equal common interests? - Philine Gaffron Walking and cycling are beginning to receive more attention in transport planning in Great Britain. But although they are generally described with similar attributes, they often receive differing treatment in the public and political arena. This article explores the main differences as well as similarities between the modes and explains why these should be seen as mutual strengths enabling them to grow together to each other's (and everyone else's) mutual benefit. The Safety & Security issues of Women drivers & passengers - Andr?e Woodcock, James Lenard & Ruth Welsh This research was commissioned by the Mobility Unit of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to address the in-car safety and security needs of women drivers and their passengers. The research was multifaceted. It sought to establish whether cars which have been designed and tested around male manikins and anthropometry were less protective to female drivers and their passengers; whether such vehicles met the requirements of the growing number of female users, and the experiences of female drivers on the road. Lastly we considered means of disseminating our results to a wide audience, through the use of posters and web sites (see Woodcock, Galer Flyte & Garner, 2001). The research presented here considers the first two issues and concluding with recommendations for future policy. The effects of car sharing on travel behaviour: analysis of CarSharing Portland's first year Richard Katzev, David Brook & Matthew Nice A review and analysis of the mobility behaviour of CarSharing Portland (CSP) members during its first year of operation. Comprehensive surveys and one-week trip diaries were administered before individuals joined the organisation and at the end of the first year. A periodic need for a vehicle was their principal reason for joining CSP. The effect of membership in CSP on overall vehicle travel was either no change or a slight increase in VMT. However, members reported an increasing frequency of bus trips, walking and cycling. In addition 26% sold their personal vehicle and 53% were able to avoid purchasing one. These results were discussed in terms of the psychology of the car sharing experience and how membership in the organisation affected travel behaviour. Private vehicle restraint measures - Lessons for India - K.S. Nesamani & Kaushik Deb India is facing a traffic nightmare with increasing rates of motor vehicle ownership. There are lessons to be learned from many cities throughout Asia about how to restrain traffic growth. These include vehicle ownership restraint and use limitation. Pedestrian flow characteristics at an intermodal transfer terminal in Calcutta - A.K. Sarkar & K.S.V.S. Janardhan In recent years, walking as a transportation mode has gained recognition as a basic building block in urban design. It is highly suitable for a certain kinds of journeys. To encourage walking and to make it more safe, convenient and attractive, the physical facilities must be available to support the physiological and social needs of pedestrians. It is important, therefore, that the flow characteristics of pedestrians be understood properly to aid the planning and design of facilities. Keeping in view the above facts, a study has been conducted at an inter-modal transfer terminal in the Calcutta Metropolitan District, and relationships of speed, density, flow and space have been developed. The paper also discusses the problems of pedestrian movement in Calcutta and suggests a few policy decisions for providing safe, convenient and pleasant movement. From czegras at MIT.EDU Thu May 10 00:18:38 2001 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (Chris Zegras) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:18:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Transport Alternatives in MUMbai Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20010509111826.026c27b0@po9.mit.edu> >Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:17:57 -0400 (EDT) >From: Neeta Misra >To: >Subject: Transport Alternatives in MUMbai > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:01:37 +0500 (GMT+0500) >From: R. Ramakumar >Subject: Transport Alternatives. > > >MUMBAI'S TOPSY-TURVY TRANSPORT PLANNING >by Darryl D'Monte >23 April 2001 > >It is ironical that the state government's proposal to build an elevated >roadway or fly-over along Peddar Road has coincided with the Konkan >Railway's announcement that it is contemplating a Sky Bus Metro Project in >the city. Admittedly, these solve different problems. The Peddar Road >scheme is being mooted to ease the traffic jams that will be created when >the Bandra-Worli Sea Link is completed in a couple of years. The Sky Bus >is a novel technology and is initially being recommended to provide >much-needed east-west connectors in a city where transport is aligned on a >north-south axis. > >The very fact that the Peddar Road scheme has been thought of so late in >the day is typical of the knee-jerk planning that has vitiated Mumbai's >recent transport projects. The Maharashtra Road Transport Development >Corporation (MSRDC), which was given excessive powers under the earlier >BJP-Shiv Sena regime, has gone ahead with the Bandra-Worli Link without >clearing the next stretch of the Western Freeway Sea Link, from Worli to >Nariman Point. The Ministry of Environment has yet to okay this section, >which is why the government earlier thought of an elevated road from >Tardeo to Chowpatty. When it faced the ire of citizens there, it turned to >Peddar Road as an alternative. The apex planning body, the Mumbai >Metropolitan Region Development Authority, is nowhere in the picture. > >Either way, it will attract public interest litigation from citizens who >do not want their surroundings to be polluted with an estimated 1,25,000 >cars each morning and an identical number on the return journey. More >importantly, the government seems unaware that private car-owners form >only 9 per cent of the city's commuters and yet contribute 60 per cent of >the air pollution (as was officially admitted during the naval fleet >review). What Mumbai needs, like any well-planned city, is efficient >public transport, which means trains and buses. Cars compete with buses >for space on roads and, elsewhere in the world, are being discouraged from >entering the central business district. The public transport system needs >to be strengthened - with many more options, including air-conditioned >train compartments and special buses to accommodate motorists. > >The Sky Bus at least has the merit of meeting some of these needs: it is >clean, cheaper than some options and comfortable. It does not clog the >existing arteries or disrupt traffic while building new routes. The >Reliance group is contemplating investing in the Rs 5,400 crore 120-km >system. With due apologies to the Konkan Railway, however, there is reason >to be sceptical about its technical competence to operate what is >apparently a unique monorail. It is one thing to run a railway between >cities and quite another within cities, particularly one as congested as >Mumbai. It is a variation of the light railway which has been proposed >from time to time. KFW, the German government's financial wing, had >offered a Rs 5,000 crore loan for such a system in Mumbai, Thane, Pune and >Nagpur when Manohar Joshi was Chief Minister. > >The overwhelming need is for a mass public transport system. The Sky Bus >doesn't fit the bill because it can reportedly only carry 15,000 people an >hour. With a current population of 11.9 million, according to the 2001 >census early estimates, Greater Mumbai requires to transport some 5-6 >million commuters in the space of three hours in both directions daily. >Planners term this a "peaking" problem, similar to the surge in demand for >power at certain times. Any "bus" - whether it is in the sky or on the >ground - is by definition mainly for short distances, ideally to and from >railway stations, given Mumbai's geography. Even the fast or >air-conditioned buses don't carry masses, only classes. The BEST is a >time-tested war-horse, which ought to be given a boost, with cleaner fuels >and better vehicles. > >For the same reason, marine transport is certainly a mode whose time has >come, but it can at best relieve the roads of some cars. It will be the >most pleasant way to commute, provided the connections from the landing >points are good. Four Seasons, owned by a New York-based NRI, Mohan Shah, >has proposed ferries from Marve to Nariman Point on the western suburbs >and Nerul (in Navi Mumbai) to the Gateway of India. The state government >is examining various bids: Four Seasons has offered to build four jetties >along the west coast too. But the fares - up to Rs 115 for a 46-minute >journey from Marve and Rs 65 for a 20-minute ride from Bandra to Nariman >Point - will deter the bulk of commuters. > >The state government ought to accord the top priority to the second phase >of the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP), a Rs 6,500 crore scheme >which will be part-funded by the World Bank. Mamata Banerjee's rail budget >this February unfortunately didn't provide the resources. This scheme >envisages augmenting the rail capacity, including a new line from Borivli >to Virar. The expenditure on roads is minimal and consists mainly of >bridges over level crossings. Only 1.1 per cent of the total expenditure >is on fly-overs, as recommended by the British consultants, W.S. Atkins, >who undertook a comprehensive study of Mumbai's transport needs. By >contrast, the previous government has spent some Rs 1,500 crore on around >50 fly-overs, which benefit only the minority of motorists. However, even >the capacity of the railways to carry more passengers is limited by the >shortage of platforms for a quick turn-around of trains, even if platforms >are extended. At the very least, the railways ought to build subways >within stations for the convenience of commuters. > >Ultimately, Mumbai may have to seriously consider the most expensive but >highly efficient alternative, which is the Metro project or seventh rail >corridor, which is partly underground. The 17.5-km underground section >would run from Bandra to Colaba, with some 20 convenient stations through >the busiest precincts en route. A consortium consisting of Tata >Consultancy Services (TCS) and British experts has studied this scheme, >which was estimated to cost Rs 8,121 crore ($1.89 billion) at March 1999 >prices. According to Dr P.G. Patankar, the former BEST General Manager who >is now a consultant to TCS, the state government would have to provide the >land worth Rs 386 crore, but the scheme would be part-funded by commercial >development within stations and by levying employment and location benefit >taxes. The Metro would carry up to 75,000 passengers per hour, which is >reason enough for planners to examine all its pros and cons. -------------------------------------------------- Christopher Zegras MIT * Center for Environmental Initiatives * Room E40-468 1 Amherst Street * Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel: 617 258 6084 * Fax: 617 253 8013 From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Thu May 10 09:42:44 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 08:42:44 +0800 Subject: [sustran] fwd: Mega road projects big business for Delhi Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F314@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Straits Times interactive http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,42750,00.html? May 10, 2001 Mega road projects is big business for Delhi It is pumping billions of dollars into building roads, but the impact onthe environment and local cultures is stirring up strong opposition By Nirmal Ghosh INDIA CORRESPONDENT NEW DELHI - With a loan package of US$200 billion (S$366 billion) backing the US$540-billion expansion of India's highway network, building roads has become a very big business - and is spawning considerable controversy. Already, there is opposition to a plan to develop the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor, involving expansion of the road infrastructure in the area which the state government hopes to develop into an information-technology and biotechnology belt. Wildlife conservation organisations recently won a temporary stay order from India's Supreme Court on a highway which would have run through part of Corbett Tiger Reserve in Uttaranchal. But this was not before the state government had felled some 7,000 trees along the proposed route despite a spate of media reports highlighting the issue. Road building, in fact, gains a momentum of its own because of the vested interests involved. Contractors compete for the trees that are felled and for the road building itself, while ancillary sectors like petrol pumps, workshops, small hotels and transport operators also benefit. But road building serves as a tool to open up areas which are often sensitive, both from the point of view of the environment and local cultures. The Corbett forests, for instance, serve as water-catchment areas for three major rivers and agricultural plains that flank them. Transport and Highway Minister B.C. Khanduri, who hails from the newly formed state of Uttaranchal, said on Tuesday that India would get a US$200-billion loan from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank for part-financing of the US$540-billion National Highway Development Programme (NHDP). The rest of the money required would come from a moderate levy on diesel and petrol, as well as market borrowings, he said. 'We have the second largest road network after the US. And our effort is to complete the NHDP by 2007.' His own state plans to spend US$1 billion on building new roads and bridges and expanding existing ones. Some of the road building is aimed at improving infrastructure for tourism, one of the few resources Uttaranchal can capitalise on. The showcase of the national highway plan is the US$270-billion Golden Quadrilateral connecting the metros of Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta with four-lane expressways. Mr Khanduri said Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had asked his ministry to complete the mega-project by 2003. The government has had only moderate success so far in attracting private investment in roads, mainly because of worries that the market may not accept the toll-road concept in poorer areas. Copyright @ 2000 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. ---------- forwarded for the purpose of education and research From czegras at MIT.EDU Fri May 11 00:56:16 2001 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (Chris Zegras) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:56:16 -0400 Subject: [sustran] "Sustainable" Transport in the US? Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20010510115404.026ce258@po9.mit.edu> Not with this administration... Sorry, this is long and slightly off the list's main topics. But, useful to know what we're up against. (From Slate - http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/01-05-09_105848.asp) frame game The Energy Crisis By William Saletan Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. PT The best issue Democrats developed against President Bush in his first 100 days was the environment. It took months of controversial decisions by Bush?cutting the Environmental Protection Agency budget, proposing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, burying the Kyoto global warming treaty, renouncing his pledge to cap carbon dioxide emissions, and suspending new limits on arsenic in drinking water?to establish the broad pattern of behavior necessary to give Bush a bad image on the environment in general. Bush's surrogates point out that he has taken pro-environment positions on preserving wetlands, restricting lead emissions, and cleaning up urban lots. They also note that Bush may eventually adopt tougher arsenic limits. But as long as they're debating the question of who's more assiduous about environmental protection, they can't win. They need to change the question. That's why, in the Bush administration, the environment issue is out, and the energy issue is in. You don't need to look further than the prices at your local gas station, or the recurring news stories about rolling blackouts in California, to see that energy is a real problem. But gas prices and blackouts were a problem last year, too. The difference is, President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had no political incentive to describe those events as part of an energy emergency. Gore was running for president as an environmentalist against a former oilman (Bush) and an oil services company CEO (Dick Cheney). The only question Democrats wanted to debate was whether Big Oil was gouging consumers. By packaging their oil drilling plans and relaxed air pollution standards together with rising gas prices, winter heating costs, and summer blackouts in various regions of the country, Bush and Cheney have built an issue that is stronger than the sum of its parts. While the elements are indisputable, the notion that they ought to be viewed as a system, with Bush's proposals seen as an integrated solution to an integrated problem, is in part a product of public relations. White House principals and aides speak constantly of an "energy strategy" to repair an "energy crisis" caused by the absence of a Clinton "energy policy." "What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America," Bush declared last week. Talk of an "energy crisis" now permeates the media, and polls confirm that most Americans believe such a crisis has arrived. Right now, most Americans oppose drilling in ANWR. But the more we discuss that idea in terms of energy rather than the environment, the more the political equation changes. Economic considerations enumerated by Bush and Cheney?"sharp increases in fuel prices from home heating oil to gasoline," electrical threats to "the high-tech industry," strangled economic growth, and layoffs?add weight to the pro-drilling side of the equation. National security concerns?the dependence on foreign oil that, in Cheney's words, makes it "easy for a regime such as Iraq to hold us hostage"?enter the debate as well. Bush's and Cheney's careers in the oil industry begin to look more like expertise than like a conflict of interest. "It's useful to have somebody who knows something about the energy business involved in the effort," Cheney argued yesterday on CNN. Eventually, the energy side of the equation overwhelms the environmental side. As EPA Administrator Christie Whitman explained recently in defense of Bush's reversal on carbon dioxide: "He was right, all things considered. We're in an energy crisis." Environmentalists hope to head off this strategy by distinguishing energy conservation from production. Through conservation, they argue, we can have sufficient energy and environmental protection without additional drilling or burning of fossil fuels. Bush and Cheney respond in part by dissolving the same dilemma from the opposite direction. Through modern technology, they argue, we can have additional drilling and fossil-fuel burning without undue environmental harm. But the energy framework also brings into the discussion a problem to which environmentalists have no good answer because it's about energy, not the environment. There isn't enough "infrastructure"?refineries, gas pipelines, power plants, and electrical grids?to process and distribute energy in the United States. The fact that solving this problem poses no clear environmental threat?and that Bush and Cheney, unlike their opponents, have been talking about it for months?adds credibility and coherence to their way of framing the debate. Having enlarged the energy side of the debate, Bush and Cheney proceed to narrow and isolate the environmentalist side. They portray their opponents as arguing not for more conservation but for conservation alone. Outlining the White House energy strategy in a speech last week, Cheney accused environmental groups of falsely suggesting that "we could simply conserve or ration our way out of the situation we're in." Days later, Bush took issue with "naive" critics who "say that we can be okay from an energy perspective by only focusing on conservation. We've got to find additional supplies of energy." As Bush and Cheney see it, energy advocates are for conservation, but conservationists are against energy. The subtlest and most decisive art in any framing contest is convincing the public that some things?those that are politically advantageous or that you want to change?are open to human deliberation and intervention, whereas other things?those that are politically problematic or that you don't want to change?are objective and immovable. In this case, environmentalists want you to think that fossil-fuel drilling and burning are inherently too dirty and that nuclear energy is inherently too dangerous, whereas technologies for alternative and renewable energy are getting better all the time. Therefore, we should give up on the former and commit ourselves to perfecting the latter. The media have largely bought into [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/national/06CONS.html?searchpv=site03 ] this spin. Cheney has reversed this tactic. Posing as the open-minded optimist, he challenges Americans to consider new "clean coal" technologies and horizontal drilling methods that could make drilling in ANWR safe and unobtrusive. But when it comes to boosting energy efficiency and developing alternative energy sources, Cheney shuts down the discussion by asserting objective limits. "For now, we must take the facts as they are," he says. "Whatever our hopes for developing alternative sources and for conserving energy fossil fuels provide virtually 100 percent of our transportation needs and an overwhelming share of our electricity requirements. For years down the road, this will continue to be true. The options left to us are fairly limited. We must take the facts as they are. To try and tell ourselves otherwise is to deny reality." Once conservationism is stripped of its exclusive claim to environmental protection and is pitted against the nation's economic well-being, its moral superiority can be turned upside down. It is reduced, in Cheney's words, to a philosophy of "austerity," an attack on America's "standard of living," and an implicit accusation that the country's energy woes "represent a failing of the American people." Against this self-loathing mentality, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer argues that energy use signifies health and virtue: "The President also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy." On this Nietzschean view, strength and courage lie not in conservation but in acquisition and production. "People have used the conservation arguments in order to avoid some of the tough issues associated with increasing supply," says Cheney. If building more nuclear power plants or drilling in ANWR "was easy, the Clinton administration would have done it. They ducked it for eight years." The final advantage of the energy framework is that it allows Republicans to sweep conservation and environmental issues into the path of their anti-government message. In a traditional liberal attempt to frame the debate in terms of big business, environmentalists depict Bush and Cheney as tools of corporate polluters. But if the problem is insufficient energy production, then energy producers and consumers are on the same team, and those who want the government to limit production and consumption are our enemy. "Already some groups are suggesting that government should step in to force Americans to consume less energy," Cheney warned last week. Instead of restricting what companies can charge for energy, Bush called for "regulatory relief to encourage an increase in the amount of supplies available for the consumers." Slowly but surely, the White House is pumping a new psychology into the political environment. Whether that's progress or pollution is up to you. -------------------------------------------------- Christopher Zegras MIT * Center for Environmental Initiatives * Room E40-468 1 Amherst Street * Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel: 617 258 6084 * Fax: 617 253 8013 From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Fri May 11 10:56:37 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:56:37 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: [msia-plan-transp] CAP/SAM National Transport Seminar Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F31C@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: niktahirah@yahoo.com [mailto:niktahirah@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 11 May 2001 1:18 To: msia-plan-transp@yahoogroups.com Subject: [msia-plan-transp] CAP/SAM National Transport Seminar Dear Everyone, NATIONAL SEMINAR ON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES I would like to inform you that the Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) and Friends of the Earth Malaysia (SAM) are organizing a National Seminar on the theme Sustainable Transport Issues and Challenges to be held from 7th to 11th of September 2001, in the Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM) in Penang, Malaysia. Given the current pace of development in Malaysia, we believe that a national seminar on the aforementioned theme is necessary to strongly influence policy and legislation on the issues concerned. We hope to produce a resolution of sorts that will be used to push for the creation of a National Transport Policy for Malaysia. To get a balanced perspective of the problems and weaknesses plaguing transport in Malaysia, we are assembling a meeting of government, non- government, academia and general public for the seminar. The Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia will be officiating the seminar, and we have invited representatives from the 6 Ministries involved in Transport Planning and Management in the country. We have also invited NGOs like URU, SILA, AIG, STEP, TRG, and several private consultants. The seminar will discuss the following sub-themes, 1. Land Use/Transport Planning 2. Traffic Planning 3. Public Transport 4. Haulage 5. Transport and the Environment 6. The Economics of Transport 7. Road Safety 8. Accessibility - Disabled, Children, Elderly 9. Women 10. The Social Impacts of Transport 11. Alternatives / Sustainable Transport We welcome any comments, suggestions, ideas, criticisms and as such from all members of the forum. Please feel free to suggest any issue or topic that should be discussed in a seminar such as this. We also welcome anyone interested to participate in the seminar. Please forward any queries to Nik Tahirah at niktahirah@yahoo.com, or at Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) 228, Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Tel: 604 - 2293511 Fax: 604 - 2298106 From levinep at earthlink.net Sat May 12 09:20:27 2001 From: levinep at earthlink.net (Esiah Levine) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:20:27 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [msia-plan-transp] CAP/SAM National Transport Seminar References: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F31C@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <001b01c0da79$5a229e10$65303004@Levine> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Barter" To: "'aasust_discuss'" Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:56 PM Subject: [sustran] FW: [msia-plan-transp] CAP/SAM National Transport Seminar > -----Original Message----- > From: niktahirah@yahoo.com [mailto:niktahirah@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2001 1:18 > To: msia-plan-transp@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [msia-plan-transp] CAP/SAM National Transport Seminar > > > Dear Everyone, > > NATIONAL SEMINAR ON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES > > I would like to inform you that the Consumers' Association of Penang > (CAP) and Friends of the Earth Malaysia (SAM) are organizing a > National Seminar on the theme Sustainable Transport Issues and > Challenges to be held from 7th to 11th of September 2001, in the > Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM) in > Penang, Malaysia. > > Given the current pace of development in Malaysia, we believe that a > national seminar on the aforementioned theme is necessary to strongly > influence policy and legislation on the issues concerned. > > We hope to produce a resolution of sorts that will be used to push > for the creation of a National Transport Policy for Malaysia. > > To get a balanced perspective of the problems and weaknesses plaguing > transport in Malaysia, we are assembling a meeting of government, non- > government, academia and general public for the seminar. > > The Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia will be officiating the > seminar, and we have invited representatives from the 6 Ministries > involved in Transport Planning and Management in the country. > > We have also invited NGOs like URU, SILA, AIG, STEP, TRG, and several > private consultants. > > The seminar will discuss the following sub-themes, > > 1. Land Use/Transport Planning > 2. Traffic Planning > 3. Public Transport > 4. Haulage > 5. Transport and the Environment > 6. The Economics of Transport > 7. Road Safety > 8. Accessibility - Disabled, Children, Elderly > 9. Women > 10. The Social Impacts of Transport > 11. Alternatives / Sustainable Transport > > We welcome any comments, suggestions, ideas, criticisms and as such > from all members of the forum. Please feel free to suggest any issue > or topic that should be discussed in a seminar such as this. > > We also welcome anyone interested to participate in the seminar. > > Please forward any queries to > > Nik Tahirah at niktahirah@yahoo.com, or at > > Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) > 228, Jalan Macalister > 10400 Penang > Tel: 604 - 2293511 > Fax: 604 - 2298106 From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Wed May 16 10:24:32 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:24:32 +0800 Subject: [sustran] fwd: GEF Award for Fuel Cells Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F336@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2001 4:11 To: sustran-discuss-approval@jca.apc.org Subject: BOUNCE sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org: Non-member submission from [Lloyd Wright ] >From sustran@po.jaring.my Wed May 16 05:11:06 2001 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:11:08 -0400 From: Lloyd Wright Organization: US Agency for International Development Does anyone know if the $28 million in GEF funding for fuel cells is in addition to the previous GEF announcement on fuel cells (I believe at $10 million)? In any event, it seems like a questionable use of such a large amount of funds; too bad the $28 million is not being applied to busways or non-motorised options where it could really make a difference. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY: 16 Projects Funded At a three-day meeting ending last Friday, the Global Environment Facility's governing council approved a work program providing $150.5 million for 16 projects around the world addressing biodiversity loss, climate change, degraded waters and ozone depletion. Outside investment of $385 million will help cover a total program cost of $535.5 million. Program elements include an $8.6 million pilot project to control persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in countries from Bulgaria to Zambia, a $28 million plan to develop fuel cell buses in India and China, $23 million in ecosystem management projects in Senegal and Latin America and a $41 million nutrient reduction project in the Danube and Black Sea basin. Citing a program in Nigeria for which outside sources are providing 13 times as much funding as the GEF, Chairman Mohamed El-Ashry called matching funds "crucial" to achieving the facility's goals. "Such cooperation helps to spread the risks associated with project implementation, to leverage firm commitments from project beneficiaries, to strengthen ownership of these projects in the countries concerned and to improve the likelihood that successful interventions will be replicated within and across national borders," El-Ashry said. Since its founding in 1994, the GEF has provided $3.3 billion of the $11.5 billion total value of its sponsored projects. The GEF counts 167 member countries and is the designated financial mechanism for international agreements on biodiversity, climate change and POPs. The facility is managed by a host of UN and other international agencies, including the UN Development Program, the UN Environment Program, the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (GEF release, 14 May. Note: You may need to download free software to view this PDF file). --------------654DDD23670E80F0B329C905 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="LWright.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Lloyd Wright Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="LWright.vcf" begin:vcard n:Wright;Lloyd tel;work:+1 202 219 0499 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.afr-sd.org org:US Agency for Interational Development;Bureau for Africa version:2.1 email;internet:LWright@afr-sd.org adr;quoted-printable:;;1325 G Street, NW=0D=0ASuite 400=0D=0A=0D=0A;Washington;DC;20005-3104;USA fn:Lloyd Wright end:vcard --------------654DDD23670E80F0B329C905-- From johnrenne at hotmail.com Wed May 16 15:59:17 2001 From: johnrenne at hotmail.com (John Renne) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:59:17 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Directory of Policy Journals in Transport, Urban Planning and Sustainablility Message-ID: ANNOUNCEMENT A "Directory of Policy Journals in Transport, Urban Planning and Sustainablility" is available at the Institute for Sustainablity and Technology Policy (ISTP) website at: http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/research/journal/ Over 50 journals are described to help academics, professionals and students research many topics related to this field. Each journal is described including a link to the site where the journal may be found on the Internet. Some journals have access to online articles. If you have any questions or comments please contact John Renne at jrenne@central.murdoch.edu.au or johnrenne@hotmail.com Thank you. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Wed May 16 18:31:41 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:31:41 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: What's new at CSE, India Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F33B@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: webadmin@cseindia.org [mailto:webadmin@cseindia.org] Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2001 2:34 To: CSE-LIST@listserv.cseindia.org Subject: What's new at CSE, India ... What's new at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, India. THE NATURAL GAS PATH TO CLEAN UP THE DIRTY AIR More and more countries across the world are taking the natural gas path to clean up the dirty air. Read in the updated CNG factsheet http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/cngfact.pdf ------------------------------------------------- IS DIESEL THE FUEL OF THE FUTURE? The diesel lobby is crying hoarse to prove diesel as the fuel of the future. But if diesel is so clean why are more and more governments moving away from it? Read more http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/factdies.pdf ------------------------------------------------- DIESEL MONOGRAPH An indepth analysis of why diesel is so bad for our health - and what needs to be done. An analysis http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/dieselmo.pdf ------------------------------------------------- INDECENT PROPOSAL Jan Pronk offers a compromise plan that gives away too much on sinks. Read more about it click the link below http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/climate/ew/art20010507_1.htm ------------------------------------------------- ... the rest is not relevant so snipped .... From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Sat May 19 11:13:43 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:13:43 +0800 Subject: [sustran] fwd: Fuel rises a blow for Gus Dur Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F346@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Here we go again... The Weekend Australian newspaper http://www.theaustralian.com.au/printpage/0,5942,2016857,00.html Fuel rises a blow for Wahid By Don Greenlees, Jakarta correspondent 19may01 BATTLING to stave off a mid-year impeachment, Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid faces a new test of his leadership after his cabinet was forced to approve politically sensitive increases in fuel and electricity prices to rein in a ballooning budget deficit. In impoverished Indonesia, the planned increase of 30 per cent in fuel prices and 20 per cent in electricity tariffs risks provoking a popular backlash, coinciding with the parliamentary impeachment proceedings against Mr Wahid. But the cabinet, which approved the budget revisions late on Thursday, had little choice in the decision with the deficit widening from 3.7 per cent of gross domestic product targeted in the budget to an unsustainable 6 per cent. The International Monetary Fund has warned that bringing the deficit under control is a pre-condition for the release of a $US400 million ($760 million) loan tranche put on hold last December. The price increases will be brought about by cutting 6 trillion rupiah ($1.2 billion) from 66 trillion rupiah in fuel subsidies by the middle of June. The national value added tax - the equivalent to Australian GST - will be increased from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. Following the cabinet meeting, economic ministers acknowledged the political risks in the subsidy cuts, which are due to be put to parliament for approval next week. "To come to such figures and measures was not easy," said senior economy minister Rizal Ramli. "The implications are far-reaching." The fears over the impact of the subsidy cuts are well-founded - previous Jakarta governments have been forced to reverse similar decisions because of public protests which spilled over into rioting. And the budget revisions come amid a worsening economic outlook for Indonesia. Only five months after the budget was framed, the Government estimates economic growth will slow this year to between 3.2 per cent and 3.7 per cent from the 5 per cent forecast in the budget. Inflation forecasts have been revised upwards from 7.2 per cent to a high-end estimate of 9.5 per cent. The new calculations assume a rupiah exchange rate of 9600 to the US dollar, compared with the 7800 forecast in January. The efforts to cut the budget deficit have won IMF approval and will help ensure the release of the delayed loan tranche. But sticking points remain over a planned Indonesian bond issue and new laws regulating the central bank. News of the budget cuts gave little immediate support to the ailing rupiah, which has been depressed by the continued uncertainty over Mr Wahid's fate. Although the new budget settings will help keep the economic recovery on track, they could heighten tensions in parliament and increase the pressure on Mr Wahid's leadership. Parliament is due to decide at the end of the month whether to seek a special session of the supreme constitutional body, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), which has the power to replace the president. The politically controversial budget changes will unavoidably become enmeshed in the intense politicking between the parliament and the presidential palace over the special session. ? 2001 The Australian From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Mon May 21 11:21:29 2001 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:21:29 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Canadian series on cars Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010521101241.009f6960@central.murdoch.edu.au> A 12-part series looking at issues surrounding Canadian society's reliance on automobiles has just begun running in the Vancouver Sun newspaper. The first piece discusses some general air pollution issues including the unintended consequences of catalytic converters which seem relevant to Sustran. Unless anyone objects, I will continue to post the reports as I read them. ________________________________________________ From the Vancouver Sun, 19 May 2001 "Why this B.C. doctor says cars are killers: Dr. David Bates, a lung disease expert, says society has no choice but to work towards pollution-free cars.'That has to be our aim.'" Paul McKay Vancouver Sun When the world's worst single "killer smog" episode engulfed London, England, in December 1952, Dr. David Bates was a young lung-disease researcher working at an inner-city hospital there. According to recently unclassified records, the smog would claim the lives of 8,000 people. Thousands more had their lungs permanently damaged by the sulphur-laden fog. The tragedy shaped his social conscience and career. Bates emigrated to Canada in 1956, becoming a specialist in air quality and lung disease at McGill University. Later, he became dean of the University of British Columbia, then retired as professor emeritus in epidemiology. The 1952 tragedy also left a permanent mark on Dr. John Last, now professor emeritus in epidemiology at the University of Ottawa. "I happened to be in London that week," he recalls. "I remember walking along Piccadilly and not being able to see my feet because the swirling fog was so thick. It was eerie. You could hear people's footsteps on the pavement, or buses go by, but you could never see them." "People were dying. They were mostly those that already had a delicate state of health. They were elderly, or they had chronic lung diseases, or they were very young children." After emigrating to Canada, the Australian-born doctor became a professor, public-health advocate and noted author and editor of medical textbooks and journals. Meanwhile, Bates pioneered the technique of comparing computerized hospital admission data and air-quality levels, led the campaign to remove lead from gasoline, advised the state of California on its notorious smog problem, and published numerous medical papers. Both are still defending lungs, and fighting air pollution. "Lungs are the same everywhere," Bates said during an interview at his home near UBC. "The current Canadian (smog damage) figures are horrendous. The economic burden of these health costs is appalling." The message is clear, he says. "We are paying a heavy price for the current levels of urban air pollution. We have to confront the fact that the auto used for commuting must be pollution-free. Period. That has to be our aim." Last concurs. "It's pretty obvious that the sheer number of cars has led to great increases in emissions and atmospheric pollution. "Almost every urban area -- if you look down from an aircraft over Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary -- there's a yellowish layer that you descend through. That's the sulphur, emitted mostly from automobile exhaust." In 1999, Bates helped design a landmark Ontario Medical Association study on air pollution and health effects in the province. Last year, the OMA reported the annual toll: -1,900 premature deaths in Ontario; - 9,800 hospital admissions; -13,000 emergency room visits; - 47 million fewer days of work productivity; - an additional $500 million in direct hospital costs. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1998, concluded that polluted air caused 5,000 additional deaths per year in 11 Canadian cities during the 1980s. Those deaths occurred even though the first wave of catalytic converters on cars, which were ordered on vehicles in the 1970s, began to reduce polluting emissions. But, since then, the number of vehicles has doubled and emissions have re-accelerated in most Canadian cities. A revised estimate puts the annual national toll at up to 16,000 deaths per year. Another recent series of Canadian studies on the sulphur compounds emitted by vehicles -- the leading pollutant implicated in the London smog tragedy - concluded that reducing just sulphur in gasoline to current California standards would save $5 billion in national health costs over the next two decades. While factories, electric power plants and fossil fuels used for home and commercial heating release some of these pollutants, the emissions from 18 million passenger vehicles, buses and trucks are the single biggest source. Tailpipe exhaust accounts for an estimated 41 per cent of nitrous oxides found in air across Canada, 19 per cent of volatile organic compounds, 38 per cent of carbon monoxide, 53 per cent of benzene, 25 to 30 per cent of microscopic soot particles, and up to 60 per cent of sulphur dioxide. These are average figures: The concentrations in congested cities are far higher. In Vancouver, vehicle emissions are already the largest source of air pollution -- and growing fast. "The health implications are considerable. In the next 25 years, the population in Vancouver and its atmospheric basin will at least double," Last says. "There will be a higher proportion of both older people, and infants and young children. They are the most vulnerable to the effects of increased atmospheric pollution. "We can expect sharp increases in the number of acute respiratory episodes, and more chronic respiratory damage, and more deaths." Bates and Last say auto pollutants are especially dangerous because they are generated where 20 million Canadians live, and because up to half of the microscopic tailpipe particles that are breathed into lungs are not breathed out again. "From vehicles you have particles directly emitted, about the size of a micron, diesel particles the same size, that are directly respirable," Bates says. "Any combustion particle in that size range has an effect on people. They get deposited in the lungs at a high deposition rate. Between 40 and 50 per cent you don't breathe out again. They are retained in the lung. You have 36 divisions of tubes, and a half a million tiny tubes. The particles are small enough to get down those tubes." The microscopic tailpipe particles, which are normally invisible and odourless, carry compounds of sulphur and nitrogen, heavy metals, unburned carbons, and secondary pollutants that form ground-level ozone. Pollutants like carbon monoxide bind to the hemoglobin in blood, robbing it of oxygen. Unburned carbon particles are toxic, and are listed as a carcinogen in the U.S. when emitted by diesel engines. "The particles are solids, aerosols, or gases of microscopic size. If they are below a certain critical size, 10 microns, they will get into the smallest tubes in the lung," Last says. "If they are less than 2.5 microns, (one 50th the size of a human hair) they will get into the air spaces at the very ends of the bronchial tubes where the oxygen-to-blood exchange takes place." "If the particles are acidic, like sulphur dioxide, they are capable of eating away the lining of the lungs. Over a period of repeated exposures, it can cause chronic, degenerative changes in the lungs." Because their lungs are smaller, infants and young children are most vulnerable, Last says. "In order to achieve the necessary air exchange -- oxygen in, carbon dioxide out -- they have to breathe more rapidly. Plus their lung mechanics mean the smallest particles can get in more deeply, and their lung cells are still growing. They also play outside in the summer, when the air pollutants are worst." The body has defence mechanisms to gradually excrete the particles, Bates says, but medical studies indicate that the effort puts extra stress on the heart and lungs. For those already suffering from chronic lung and heart problems, the pollutants can trigger erratic pulse and heart rates, severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, a weakening of the body's immune system, or death. While catalytic converters on cars have helped cut tailpipe emissions, Bates says they have also had an unintended side-effect: Pollutants that aren't destroyed are burned into smaller particles and new versions are created in microscopic aerosol form. These tiny particles are deadly in a different way. "The smaller the particles, the more (lung) surface area is covered, and the more toxic the particle. There's a whole wealth of that data." The Canadian smog and health statistics dovetail with similar studies elsewhere. Bates cites a blizzard of recent smog studies and statistics: levels during the Atlanta Olympics; hospital admissions in Brisbane, Australia; a report on health costs due to smog in Europe; the number of diesel taxis in London; the cost of pollution control equipment on a generating station near Vancouver; diesel concentrations in Santiago, Chile; a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on diesel emissions. Both experts agree that a clear pattern emerges from these studies: impressive gains from catalytic converters on cars are being wiped out by a 250-per-cent increase in car use since they were introduced. And chronic exposure to auto pollutants can cause more long-term health damage than summer "spikes." "Spikes produce acute episodes like the London smog of 1952, and some recently here in Canada," Last says. "The long-term effects of much lower levels are chronic damage. Repeated insults can tip that over the edge into lethal damage (caused by) acute smog episodes." Bates says the impact of summer smog spikes can be readily seen in next-day hospital admissions - particularly for infants and elderly people with lung and heart problems. "Every study shows the same thing. In the summer, there is a strong association between ozone and sulphates together, and hospital admissions for asthma and other lung diseases." He says a study of smog levels during the Atlanta Olympics, conducted by the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, confirms that equally dramatic benefits can occur when smog levels drop sharply. "The ozone peak fell because there was a 20-per-cent reduction in automobile use for 17 days, due to an appeal to the public. That produced a 40-per-cent reduction for emergency hospital admissions for asthma." Both doctors also warn that the carbon dioxide constantly emitted by vehicles (2.3 kilograms per litre of gasoline) is helping to cause a "greenhouse effect" that magnifies smog damage and may trigger violent climate changes. "An increase of temperature would increase the formation of smog from nitrous oxides," Bates says. "Even if the amount of air pollutants remains constant, if the temperature goes up the ozone (smog) peaks will go up. And the health damage will be proportional, even in places like southern Ontario and Quebec." "When we're talking about the adverse damage on health by exhaust from automobiles, the direct bill comes from damage to respiratory systems," Last says. "But I'm even more concerned about auto emissions and the atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases. The long-term consequences will be devastating, possibly catastrophic effects on the health of huge numbers of people." That evidence is now rock solid, Last says. "Only a lunatic fringe, or those associated with the industries who are causing the problem, deny that. Every new report on this makes the case more persuasive. I know many of the health professionals who are working on this. I have studied it. It is good science." ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon May 21 23:13:38 2001 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:13:38 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Canadian series on cars In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010521101241.009f6960@central.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: We have decided to build on Craig Townsend's good recommendation as far as this promising Canadian series is concerned and contacted the Sun to see if we can feed the text directly into our Today! e-mag at http://ecoplan.org/access. We anticipate following the series within 24 hours each time. In the meantime, the current edition of Today! is given over to a fine piece from the latest Economist on Nuclear Futures? Excellent piece! Eric Britton The Commons ___ technology, economy, society ___ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France TheCommons@ecoplan.org URL www.ecoplan.org Day phone: +331 4326 1323 Mobile: +336 80 96 78 79 Voice/Videoconference/Data +331.4441.6340 (1-4) 24 hour Voicemail/Fax hotline: +331 5301 2896 From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Tue May 22 10:52:26 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:52:26 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: [transport-csd] Fw: [csdgen] Schedule of regional prepcoms fo r the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F350@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: Noah Budnick [mailto:nbudnick@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2001 6:59 To: transport-csd@yahoogroups.com Subject: [transport-csd] Fw: [csdgen] Schedule of regional prepcoms for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zehra Aydin" To: ; ; ; ; Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 6:14 PM Subject: [csdgen] Schedule of regional prepcoms for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment > Dear Friends, > > Please find below the schedule of regional and sub-regional preparatory > committee meetings for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Further > information about the regional process can be obtained by contacting the > regional secretariats (contacts are provided under each region) or from the > Summit's web site at www.johannesburgsummit.org. > > Best regards > > Zehra Aydin-Sipos > Secretariat of the World Summit on Sustainable Development > > _______________________________________________________________________ > REGIONAL/SUB-REGIONAL PREPCOMS 2001 (As of 17 May 2001) > > AFRICA > Regional PrepCom, Nairobi, Kenya, 15-18 October > > Sub-regional Prepcoms > South Africa (SADC), Gaborone, Botswana, 3-5 September > Northern Africa (AMU), Tunis, Tunisia, 5-7 September > East Africa (IGAD/COMESA), Djibouti, 10-12 September > Central Africa (ECCAS), Libreville, Gabon, 17-19 September > West Africa (ECOWAS), Abuja, Nigeria, 24-26 September > > Contacts: > Mr. Ousmane Laye, UNECA, > P.O. Box 3001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia > Tel: (251-1) 515 761, Fax: (251-1) 514 416, Email: olaye@uneca.org > > Mr. Sekou Toure, UNEP Regional Office for Africa > P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya > Tel.: (254 2) 624-285, Fax: (254 2) 624-324, E-mail: sekou.toure@unep.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > ASIA & PACIFIC > Regional PrepCom, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 27-29 November > > Sub-regional Prepcoms > South-east Asia, Manila, Philippines, 13-15 June > Central Asia, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 28-30 June > North-east Asia, Beijing, China, 25-27 July > South Asia, Bhutan or Kathmandu, 1st week of August > Pacific, Samoa, mid-September > > Contacts: > Mr. Rezaul Karim, UNESCAP, > 5th Floor, UN Building, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok 10200, THAILAND > Tel: (66 2) 288-1614, Fax: (66 2) 288-1025, Email: karim.unescap@un.org > > Mr. Nirmal Andrews, UNEP Regional Office for Asia and Pacific > 10th Floor, UN Building, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok 10200, THAILAND > Tel: (66 2) 288-1870, Fax: (66 2) 280-3829, Email: andrewsni@un.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > WEST ASIA > Regional PrepCom, Cairo, Egypt, 28-30 October > > Contacts: > Mr. Omar Touqan, UNESCWA > P.O.Box: 11-8575, Riad El-Solh Square, Beirut, Lebanon > Tel: (962 6) 606 847, Fax: (962 6) 694 981, E-mail: touqan.escwa@un.org > > Mr. Mahmood Abdulraheem, UNEP Regional Office for West Asia > P.O. Box 10880, Manama, State of Bahrain > Tel.: (973) 27 60 72 / 73, Fax: (973) 27 60 75, E-mail: > uneprowa@batelco.com.bh > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN > Regional PrepCom, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 23-24 October > > Sub-regional Prepcoms > Southern Cone, Santiago, Chile, 14-15 June > Meso-America, San Salvador, El Salvador, 17-18 July > Caribbean, Havana, Cuba, 28-29 June > Andean, Quito, Ecuador, 2-3 July > > Contacts: > Ms. Alicia Barcena, UNECLAC > P.O. Box: Casilla 179-D, Santiago, Chile > Tel.: (562) 210-2000 or 210-2149, Fax: (562) 208-0252 or 228-1947, Email: > abarcena@eclac.cl > > Mr. Ricardo Sanches Sosa, UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the > Caribbean > Boulevard de los Virreyes No. 155, Col. Lomas Virreyes, AP 10793, 11000 > Mexico, D.F., Mexico > Tel.: (525) 202 7529/7493, Fax: (525) 202 0950, E-mail: > rsanchez@rolac.unep.mx > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > EUROPE > Regional PrepCom, Geneva, Switzerland, 24-25 September > > Subregional Prepcom > Central Eastern Europe, Bucharest, Romania, 27-28 June > Central Asia, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 27-29 June (This meeting falls under > both Asian and European regions) > > Contacts: > Ms. Mary Pat Silveira, UNECE > Palais des Nations, CH - 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland > Tel: 41-22-917-4444, Fax: 41-22-917-0505, Email: > mary.pat.silveira@unece.org > > Mr. Frits Schlingemann, UNEP Regional Office for Europe > Geneva Executive Centre, 15 Chemin des An?mones, 1219 Ch?telaine, Geneva, > Switzerland > Tel: 41-22-979-9111, Fax: 41-22-797-3420, Email: roe@unep.ch > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: transport-csd-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Tue May 22 11:21:57 2001 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:21:57 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Canadian series on cars Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010522101405.009f0ad0@central.murdoch.edu.au> From the Vancouver Sun newspaper online edition, 21 May 2001 Canada's fuel among the worst: Sulphur blamed for foul auto emissions Paul McKay Vancouver Sun Can we have our cars and clean air too? In this 12-part series, a look at reinventing our wheels. Canadians spend nearly $150 million each year for anti-pollution devices that are factory-installed on all new cars, mini-vans, pickup trucks and SUVs. The devices are designed to cut smog-triggering tailpipe emissions by 90 per cent compared with those of two decades ago. But they are being sabotaged by a chemical enemy lurking in almost all gasoline sold in Canada. So are the catalytic converters and pollution sensors in millions of older vehicles. The impaired emission devices are allowing millions of tonnes of "fugitive" auto pollutants to silently escape tailpipes each year -- adding an extra threat to Canadian cities already beset by smog and related health damage. The saboteur is sulphur. It's a common ingredient in the crude oil that is refined to make gasoline. The more sulphur per litre of gas, the more it disables pollution control devices. The longer a car runs on high sulphur gas, the more irreversible the damage. And sulphur levels in Canadian gas are among the highest in the world. "It's poisoning the catalyst. It's preventing it from doing its job," says Ron Solman, a retired professional engineer who helped develop emission testing and fuel-efficiency standards for the federal government. "Canadians are already paying the price. They are already having their air quality damaged more than was intended." Perversely, sulphur does the most damage to ultra-sensitive, state-of-the-art emission equipment. Once that happens, it is likely irreversible. Then vehicle owners may pay again through reduced fuel economy, replacement parts, or failed emission tests in provinces where they are mandatory. "When you buy a new vehicle, not only are you expecting a certain level of emission performance, you are expecting certain fuel economy," Solman says. "Because of sulphur, you may not get the fuel economy you think you've got. "It may be only a per cent or two less, but over 18 million vehicles and more than 30 billion litres burned every year, that's a lot of fuel." This may be news to motorists, but it is no surprise to auto-makers, oil industry executives or government regulators in the U.S. and Canada. Numerous technical studies have identified sulphur as the arch-enemy of catalytic "after-burners" designed to destroy a host of harmful pollutants in engine exhaust. "Sulphur is known to be the ultimate culprit in raising across-the-board emissions -- hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter or toxics," says Mark Nantais of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association. "All the data point in one direction: elevated emissions of each of these pollutants." After an epic battle pitting U.S. oil refiners against auto makers and regulators, California banned the sale of gasoline with an average sulphur content higher than 30 parts per million in 1996. In many urban regions of the U.S., gasoline with 50 ppm is mandatory to reduce urban smog. Countries like Japan, Thailand and Taiwan have similar legal limits, while Britain, Sweden, Denmark and Finland have reached those levels with a combination of regulations and taxes. In some cases, the transition took mere months. Yet Canada's gasoline isn't slated to reach the 30 ppm sulphur content level until 2005 -- a full decade after provincial environment ministers asked the federal government to impose national gas standards matching sulphur limits to the best available auto-emission equipment. An unlikely alliance of Canadian auto-makers, medical associations and environmentalists backed them up. They all wanted cleaner air. Instead, they got better catalytic converters -- and increasingly dirty fuels that disable them. Our 17 million cars, minivans and pick-up trucks burn some of the filthiest fuel on the planet at a rate of 100 million litres per day. Canada's average national sulphur content exceeds 300 ppm -- 10 times the 30 ppm design limit for the newest emission controls. In Ontario, the largest gasoline market, the sulphur average exceeds 400 ppm. Last year, all new passenger vehicles sold in North America were made with anti-pollution devices designed to meet California's tough tailpipe limits and run on low-sulphur (30 ppm) fuel. They have zero tolerance for high sulphur gas. "The newer vehicles have technology to ensure less pollution. In order to do that, you have to have no-to-low sulphur," says Beatrice Olivastri, of the Ottawa-based environmental group Friends of the Earth. "So if you as a consumer have spent extra dollars to get a car that is fuel efficient and contributes less to smog, you're not going to get your money's worth unless you can also get low-sulphur fuel. The two have to go together." Adds Nantais: "All the evidence, both auto and oil company studies conducted in the U.S., shows that low-emission vehicles deliver the optimum benefit when they have low-sulphur gasoline. Half the cars tested at 40 ppm exceeded the emission standards." But that is not even close to the sulphur levels in Canadian gasoline. Last summer, an Esso refinery in Ontario shipped regular gas with 900 ppm sulphur. A Petro-Canada refinery produced premium grade gas with 600 ppm sulphur. U.S. tests on catalytic converters in the late 1990s found that at 600 ppm, hydrocarbon pollutants increase by 46 per cent, carbon monoxide increases by 86 per cent and nitrogen oxides increase by 156 per cent compared to emissions at 30 ppm. The pollution occurs roughly in proportion to the sulphur levels. On a model-by-model basis, the catalytic converters in U.S. and Canadian vehicles are identical. "You have to get down to about 30 ppm to get minimal effect on the catalyst," Solman says. "If people are buying a vehicle that they think is going to give them and their kids a better [air quality] break, that promise isn't being met because they can't get the fuel." Canada's biggest oil refiners have been defying the world-wide trend to cleaner gasoline for more than a decade. The national sulphur average increased by 40 per cent from 1988 to 1998; the Ontario average increased by 141 per cent during the same period. Most gas refiners have improved only modestly since then. "We had a lot of discussions with the oil companies and they continued to resist," laments Nantais. "Their position has been: unless it is regulated, they shall not move." The country's two biggest suppliers of high sulphur gas are Imperial Oil (Esso) and Petro-Canada. They account for more than half the gasoline sold in Canada, and operate seven of the worst high-sulphur refineries. Both have relied on increasing volumes of cheaper, high-sulphur crude during the past decade, and both have made minimal investments to date for sulphur-reduction refinery upgrades. Company fuel content reports filed with Environment Canada show there are often high sulphur levels in even their premium blends. Esso and Petro-Canada officials interviewed by The Vancouver Sun flatly deny that sulphur damages current catalytic converters, and say their companies will spend hundreds of millions to reduce sulphur to 30 ppm before 2005. They stress all their gasoline contains sulphur well below the current national guideline of 1,000 ppm. By buying cheaper "sour" feedstock and saving costs on stripping the sulphur at refineries, Imperial and Petro-Canada can squeeze extra profits from sales at the pump. Petro-Canada has about 2,000 gas stations and fuel supply outlets. Imperial markets its gas through 2,500-stations in the Esso retail chain, and major outlets like Canadian Tire. Last summer, a Canadian Tire outlet in Toronto had the highest sulphur levels, 800 ppm, among 48 cross-Canada gas station samples obtained by The Sun. Based on reported refinery sulphur levels for last summer, Esso was the probable source of the gas at that outlet. The refiner's crude may be sour, but the profits are sweet. Last year, Imperial Oil reported net earnings of $1.4 billion -- the highest in its 120-year history and nearly triple net earnings in 1999. Petro-Canada reported net earnings of $893 million, nearly four times its 1999 profit of $233 million. Its previous most-profitable year was 1997, when it earned $306 million. The Irving Oil refinery in New Brunswick provides a startling counterpoint. The refinery added sulphur-removal technology as part of a recent $1-billion refinery upgrade. Blending with low-sulphur crude allows it to sell 30 ppm gas in the Maritimes and the U.S. eastern seaboard. It also supplies three MacEwen gas outlets in Ottawa. "Why is it that Irving Oil can step up to the plate, using off-the-shelf technology? They are the largest independent refinery in Canada," Nantais says. "Where are the others?" In 1999, the Chretien government enacted a regulation forcing Canada's refiners and importers to clean up their act by 2005. A panel of medical experts, who prepared a 1998 report for Environment Canada, concluded that reducing the sulphur content to 30 ppm would prevent 1,352 premature deaths, 1,537 hospital admissions, 58,429 acute respiratory cases for children and two million days of acute asthma problems in seven Canadian cities over the next two decades. Their report estimated the savings in lower health costs to be $5 billion, and stressed that the prevention benefits from improved air quality would be far greater for the national population. "If everybody had access now to low sulphur gasoline, at 30 ppm, it would be the equivalent of removing two million vehicles from our roads," Nantais says. A second expert panel pegged the capital costs for all oil refinery upgrades to meet a 30 ppm national average at $1.8 billion, with further combined annual operations costs of $119 million. Due to low profitability and tight competition, it warned, up to three unidentified Canadian refineries might close rather than finance upgrades. The combined refinery upgrades would increase the price of gas by a penny a litre. Despite this, Canada's oil lobby continued to oppose the sulphur limit advocated by car makers, the Ontario Medical Association, some cities and environmental groups. The refiners refused to endorse any conclusions in a 1998 report on the issue to Environment Canada, contending there was no scientific or medical basis for the 30 ppm limit. Petro-Canada, in which the federal government is still a major shareholder, ranks as Canada's second-dirtiest gas vendor. It told Environment Canada: "We do not believe the stated benefits [by medical experts] are defensible. [The company] is concerned about the possibility of prematurely investing tens of millions of dollars in sulphur reduction with dubious economic benefits and no clear justification." Nantais says every member of the Ottawa-based Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute has so far rejected a proposal to join the auto makers in a campaign to market low-sulphur gasoline. (Irving Oil did take up the offer, but is not a member of the Institute). Following a filing by Friends of the Earth under federal access to information laws, Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada, Shell Canada and Sunoco sought a court ruling to prevent the public release of data about the sulphur levels in gas they sell. "I believe that disclosure of Imperial's sulphur content reports will generate negative publicity about Imperial as a responsible corporation, and about the quality of Imperial gasoline, and that this negative publicity will prejudice Imperial's competitive position in the retail market," Imperial vice-president Roger Purdue said in a 1998 affidavit. "Sulphur in gasoline has no impact on engine performance and its contribution to smog is negligible." Petro-Canada manager Giorgio Grappolini said his company's sulphur content reports to Environment Canada should not be made public because they "contain competitively sensitive information that is of strategic value to competitors of Petro-Canada and to suppliers, contractors, or contractors with whom Petro-Canada does business." The companies later withdrew the court challenge and acceded to public disclosure of the sulphur-content reports they must file annually to Environment Canada. They are not independently verified. The oil refiners have also rejected as impractical proposals to have sulphur levels in their gasoline posted at their pumps. "If people knew that the anti-pollution equipment in their car is being poisoned, and they had a choice from company to company, then they could move the marketplace by choosing low sulphur fuel," says Olivastri, of Friends of the Earth. "This is the kind of competition we would like to see." The stalemate tactics by the oil refiners didn't win the war, but they did delay the day of regulatory reckoning by seven years. Now their deadline is 2005. If Canada's oil refiners fail to produce gasoline with an average sulphur content of 30 ppm, it cannot be sold here. Both Esso and Petro-Canada say they will achieve that sometime in 2004. Dr. David Bates, a former dean of the University of British Columbia and air pollution adviser to the Canada/U.S. International Joint Commission, says that deadline is far too lenient. "Three years ago we made a recommendation to the IJC, which passed it on to the government, saying the sulphur in fuel should be immediately reduced. I'm amazed that it is still that high. I am astounded that Canada has been so reluctant to take this stand," Bates says. "When it got down to it, it was one cent a litre when the oil industry produced its final costs. Now the reality is: for new vehicles you must have the sulphur level down to 30 ppm." In the meantime, some four million new vehicles are projected to be sold in Canada between now and 2005. All of them will have pollution-control devices acutely vulnerable to damage from high-sulphur gas. Car manufacturers say they -- and millions of older vehicles -- may be permanently damaged by the time clean gas comes to most Canadian gas pumps. "The more fuel you use, with a higher concentration of sulphur, over time it builds up more and more," Nantais says. "And it's quite conceivable that these problems don't kick in until just after the warranty expires. So the consumer gets stuck with the bill." ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed May 23 03:39:45 2001 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:39:45 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Travelling Faculty in Urban Studies (fwd) Message-ID: I thought this jight just interest some of our group? To: Members of the International Sociological Association Travelling Faculty in Urban Studies Cities of the 21st Century: People, Planning, and Politics 15 January- 6 May 2002 The International Honors program in cooperation with Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA) offers a series of independent study abroad programs. We are currently seeking 3-4 individuals to join an interdisciplinary team of faculty and host city coordinators for "Cities in the 21st Century", a four month long course that will take 30 students from upper tier liberal arts colleges and University to Mumbai, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro and Curitiba. The 2002 program begins in New York on January 15, 2002 and ends in Washington, DC on May 6, 2002. The mission of the course is to provide students with first hand familiarity with the challenges of urbanization in the cities of the developing world through a series of formal courses, home-stays, guest lectures by local academics, politicians, and policy makers, site visits and meetings with NGOs, neighbourhood organizations and community activists. The ideal candidate should: a) have a MA or PhD in an urban social science and teaching experience at the college level b) be able to teach an introductory course in urban planning, urban anthropology, or urban ecology, and contribute to a collaboratively-taught course on urban politics; c) have research/consulting experience with urban issues in some part of the developing world (specific experience in India, south Africa, Brazil desired, but not required); d) possess not only the appropriate technical skill sets, but the sensibilities (flexibility, adaptability, collegiality, cultural sensitivity, etc.) necessary for such an endeavour. More information about IHP is available at http://www.ihp.edu Electronic versions of all application materials are preferred. Please send a letter of interest, along with vita and names of 3 academic references to: info@ihp.edu From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Wed May 23 10:51:22 2001 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:51:22 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Canadian series on cars (3) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010523092659.009eb040@central.murdoch.edu.au> From the Vancouver Sun newspaper online edition, 22 May 2001 Dirty gas: Refiners fought sulphur cuts Human health measured against costs to industry Paul McKay Vancouver Sun Horse-trading over human health. That's the grim game Canada's oil refiners got into during the year following passage in June 1999 of an obscure federal regulation limiting sulphur levels in gasoline. It's a story buried in some 350 pages -- many stamped confidential -- obtained under access to information laws. They detail an intense year of closed meetings, pressure from lobbyists, cost calculations and secret briefing memos for federal cabinet ministers. It amounts to a war of words -- and wills. On one side were CEOs of oil refiners that produce high-sulphur gasoline that "poisons" catalytic converters on Canadian cars. On the other, Environment Canada and Health Canada. The issue was when the oil refiners would comply with the 1999 regulation and upgrade their refineries to strip out sulphur particles in gasoline. On the face of it, the regulation was uncompromising. The deadline is Jan. 1, 2005. An interim level of 150 ppm kicks in by July 2002. Sulphur levels must be reduced from a national average that now exceeds 300 ppm to just 30 ppm. No exceptions. Yet only two months after the regulation was enacted, the refiners began pressing the federal government hard for amendments. That's when the brokering began over future deaths, hospital admissions and health-care costs generated by Canada's notoriously dirty gasoline and its related smog effects. The campaign was led by the Ottawa-based Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. Many of the negotiations with federal officials took place in its Slater Street office. The institute's dominant members are Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada, which sell more than half the 38 billion litres of gasoline burned in Canada's cars each year. Seven of the Imperial and Petro-Canada refineries rank among the dozen worst producers of high-sulphur gas in Canada (see sidebar). According to independent technical reports commissioned by Environment Canada, they face the biggest costs for refinery upgrades to remove sulphur. In September 1999, the petroleum products institute proposed a plan that would allow oil producers to keep selling high-sulphur fuel in exchange for "future considerations." The longer they could wait, they argued in memos and meetings, the better and cheaper sulphur-removal technology would be. But first came a triple-barrelled warning: - As many as eight major refineries might have to mothball operations, causing national gas-price hikes, short supplies and trucked imports that would increase air pollution; - Meeting the 150-ppm target by 2002 would be technically impossible and financially ruinous for Esso and Petro-Canada refineries in Ontario; - And the federal government would have to accept their proposed delays by April 2000 or the refiners would begin notifying already jittery gas retailers of impending shortages and employees of potential shut-downs. That blunt message was coated with a sweetener: if Environment Canada would waive the interim sulphur limit of 150 ppm by July 2002, the refiners would agree to meet the 30 ppm limit by 2004 -- one year ahead of the regulatory deadline. That would "buy" an extra year of reduced auto emissions, and allow the next generation of auto anti-pollution devices to work in tandem. But Environment and Health Canada staff concluded that the offer had a dark side. It would allow the biggest refiners to continue selling dirty gas until 2004, putting more sulphur pollutants into the air and triggering additional smog-related illnesses and costs. The industry proposal would also sandbag the maverick refiner Irving Oil, which had just committed to upgrade its New Brunswick complex to meet the 30 ppm standard by this year. And, memos noted, it would be condemned by the doctors, car makers and environmentalists who wanted all of Canada's high-sulphur refiners to quickly match Irving Oil's example. At a January 2000 meeting at the institute's headquarters, Environment and Health Canada staff stressed that no proposal would fly unless there was proof it would create no net increase in emissions and health damage. In response, an institute executive produced a list entitled "Options for Generating Sulphur Credits." Instead of reducing sulphur in gasoline, the oil refiners proposed to reduce sulphur in home heating oil, diesel fuel for trucks, power plants and construction machinery, and from refinery operations. There were no details on which refineries would make the reductions in exchange for credits against their high-sulphur gasoline, or how the credits would be calculated. Nothing was said about a crucial issue: The high-sulphur gas would damage the anti-emission devices on some four million new vehicles expected to be sold in Canada from 2001 to 2005 -- and allow the escape of other smog-related pollutants. After institute executives warned that Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada and Shell were concerned about possible gas shortages unless there were concessions, an Environment Canada memo notes, a vice-president "indicated that CPPI's alternative path forward is to go 'political' with the message that there will not be compliance at full production levels [and] there will be strong and dramatic action." That was coded language for refinery shutdowns, gas shortages and price hikes at the pumps -- a message no politician could ignore. A few days later, institute president Alain Perez wrote to the deputy minister of Environment Canada. "I believe," he wrote, "that the main obstacle is that Health Canada experts are not prepared to accept the methodology offered, or are asking for further studies that cannot be accommodated because of time pressure or lack of existing data." By April 7, 2000, the institute had provided some sketchy calculations to back up the proposed sulphur offsets in other fuels, and pressed for urgent action. Meanwhile, Environment Canada had commissioned outside experts to study how quickly the oil refiners could meet the 150 ppm and 30 ppm targets, and the costs to comply. Health Canada compared the institute plan to earlier studies on public health damage due to high-sulphur gas. Those estimates had anchored Environment Canada's determination to clean up Canada's gasoline. The following week, Environment Canada staff met separately with Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada executives. Both companies pressed for even more "flexibility." Petro-Canada wanted a system of credits, extending to 2010, which would be earned by reducing sulphur in highway diesel, regular diesel, furnace oil, jet fuel and refinery emissions based on a benchmark of its highest sulphur levels from 1996-98. It also wanted credit for meeting the 30 ppm limit in gasoline by 2004. Imperial Oil also wanted to use its worst sulphur levels as the benchmark for credits, and to earn offsets by reducing sulphur in diesel and furnace oil through the year 2010. It also wanted credit for meeting the 30 ppm limit one year early. In most cases, the two companies were seeking credits far into the future for pollution reductions in other fuels, such as diesel, which also face imminent regulatory reductions. But there were no hard commitments, and no details on which fuels would have how much sulphur reduced by what date. "It is not possible to quantify the sulphur-reduction benefits, let alone the health benefits, from the data provided by Petro-Canada," an Environment Canada official concluded. "Imperial Oil left no quantification documents for Environment Canada to use. ... The responsibility for providing the necessary information on potential offset packages was left with the respective companies." That information never did arrive. But an analysis by Health Canada on the institute's proposal did, and it was not good news for the high-sulphur refiners. During 2002 and 2003, it concluded, health damage would increase dramatically if the 150 ppm limit was waived, and far outweigh the gain of moving to the 30 ppm limit one year earlier. Health Canada estimated the net increased health damage would include 60 premature deaths, 70 hospital admissions, 190 emergency room visits, 220 chronic respiratory disease cases, 2,700 extra cases of lung disease in children, 45,000 extra days of restricted activity, 93,000 days in which people suffered acute asthma symptoms, and 330,000 additional cases of acute respiratory symptoms. "Although the measures proposed by CPPI are likely to bring some benefits, the sum total of benefits will be less than for the current regulation," wrote then-deputy minister of Health Canada, David Dodge. "This is due to the lower benefits that can be expected from some of the proposed measures than from those actions on sulphur in gasoline." Soon after, external experts hired by Environment Canada provided their draft analysis of the impact of the sulphur regulations on the oil refiners. Using precise, refinery-by-refinery data, they concluded that all the refineries could meet the 30 ppm deadline by 2003, that the threat of refinery shut-downs and gas shortages was barely credible, and that all the upgrades combined would add only a penny per litre to gas costs. The institute responded by sending delegations and memos to senior mandarins at federal departments, and by pitching their case to provincial politicians where their refineries are located. They also persuaded Liberal MPs to approach federal Environment Minister David Anderson, and sought meetings at the federal deputy minister level. Facing intense pressure, Anderson's staff made a counter offer: if all the institute's members would agree to meet the 30 ppm standard by July 2003, a deal could be struck to waive the interim 150 ppm legal limit. That would bring more pollution in the first three years, and less in the last two. In early May 2000, the institute responded with an even more complex variation: each refiner could choose to either meet the interim limit and wait until 2005 to meet the 30 ppm deadline, or ignore the interim limit and produce 30 ppm gas two years earlier. Once again, Health Canada crunched the numbers to estimate the health impacts of the new proposal. It concluded that an additional 30 deaths, 35 hospital admissions, 95 emergency room visits, 110 bronchitis cases, and 200,000 days lost to respiratory illnesses would result. It was the last offer Canada's high-sulphur refiners put on the table. By 2000, Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada were earning record profits. Company officials now say all their refineries will meet the 30 ppm sulphur in gasoline limit by 2004, without mothballing any facilities, laying off any employees or gas supply shortages. They and their rivals are now locked in a new test of wills with federal regulators over proposals to reduce high levels of sulphur in the 12 billion litres of diesel fuel burned annually by Canada's 370,000 big highway rigs and 77,000 buses. ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Wed May 23 14:36:15 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:36:15 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: New Format for SUSTRAN News Flash service Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F35C@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Dear sustran-discussers FYI, I just sent the message below to the list of recipients of the SUSTRAN News Flash service which has been dormant for some time. I intend that any information that I send to the Flash list I will also send to sustran-discuss. So there is no need to subscribe to both lists. The difference is that sustran-discuss encourages requests for information, discussions and debate while the flash list is just for announcements and news items. Paul ------------ Dear friends It is many months since the last SUSTRAN News Flash arrived in your mailbox. Due to the demands of a new job I have not been able to make time to prepare the Flashes in their former format which involved many hours of work. Therefore I now propose a new format that will be less time consuming for me but which will still provide you with relevant and timely information on transport issues of relevance to the mission of the SUSTRAN Network, as was provided by the previous News Flash service. I propose to forward items individually instead of packaging them into a newsletter format as before. This also has the advantage of reducing delay for urgent items. I may edit items a little for length and relevance and, where possible, will include web links or contacts for more information. I will exercise editorial discretion to try to maintain a high quality and well-focussed service. The sustran-flash list will still be a "one-to-many" list. Only I will be able to post items. So you will NOT be bombarded with large numbers of irrelevant messages. I will also try to limit the messages to no more than one per day. I will try to ensure that the subject line is meaningful. I would like to remind you all that if you would like to read or take part in discussions then please consider our other list, the sustran-discuss list. For more information and archives of messages to sustran-discuss please see the website, http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet Your feedback on the new arrangement is most welcome. As usual, please send news items, announcements, useful links, comments, etc. to sustran@po.jaring.my Best wishes, Paul Dr Paul Barter Visiting Fellow, Department of Geography National University of Singapore 1 Arts Link, Singapore 117570 Tel: +65-874 3860; Fax: +65-777 3091 E-mail: geobpa@nus.edu.sg (I'm also known as A Rahman Paul Barter) PS I am still volunteer contact point for SUSTRAN Network information services sustran@po.jaring.my http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet For all other SUSTRAN Network matters contact the NEW SECRETARIAT: Dr Bambang Susantono and Ms Moekti H. Soejachmoen Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network) c/o Pelangi Indonesia, Jl. Danau Tondano No. A-4, Jakarta 10210, Indonesia. Tel. +(62 21) 573 5020, 571 9360 Fax +(62 21) 573 2503 csti@pelangi.or.id From sustran at po.jaring.my Thu May 24 10:37:47 2001 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Info Services) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:37:47 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: Call for papers for ICTTS'2002 Message-ID: <000a01c0e3f2$23ddc0a0$a3798489@nus.edu.sg> A forwarded conference announcement (a nice short one) to kick off the new-style sustran-flash service... -------------------------------------- Dear sir, I'm Secretary-General of the third international conference on traffic and transportation studies(ICTTS'2002), which will be held in July 23-25,2002, Guilin, China. ICTTS'2002 was sponsored by the China Association for Science and Technology. The American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE), Institute of Transport Engineers (ITE), Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies (HKSTS), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) were also the sponsors of the Conference. The proceedings of the conference will be published by ASCE as it did last two time. The main topic of the conference are as followed: (1)Transportation Policy, Environment and Sustainability (2)Transportation Planning and Operation (3)Traffic Flow Models and Applications (4)Urban Traffic Management and Control (5)Traffic Accident and Road Safety (6)Mass Transit System (7)Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transportation (8)Issues in Transportation Economics (9)Physical Distribution and Logistics (10)Transportation Infrastructure and Pavement Systems (11)Transportation Issues in Developing Countries Followed is the deadlines: Deadline for Abstracts June 30, 2001 Notification of Acceptance of Abstracts July 30, 2001 Deadline for Draft Full Papers September 15, 2001 Notification of Acceptance of Papers November 30, 2001 Deadline for Final Full Papers January 15, 2002 you can also visit our web site: http://www.njtu.edu.cn/depart/xyjtys/ictts If you have any question about our conference, please send email to: gpxiao@center.njtu.edu.cn or ictts@cenetr.njtu.edu.cn Yours Sincerely, Guiping Xiao Secretary-General Organizing Committee ICTTS'2002 -------------------------------------- From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Tue May 29 11:59:11 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:59:11 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: H*elp the Shell Foundation to do good with their new Sustaina bility Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F36E@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> (this bounced because majordomo thought it was an admin request. So I am forwarding to the list. Paul) ----------- From: eric.britton@ecoplan.org To: "Sustran Resource Centre" Subject: Help the Shell Foundation to do good with their new Sustainability Transportation program Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:24:23 +0200 Dear Friends and Colleagues, This is to invite you to follow and perhaps if you chose participate actively in an international workshop that is to be held here in Paris next week, on June 8th, on the topic of sustainable transportation. The workshop has been called by the Shell Foundation who are bringing together a group of about thirty experts from various places around the world to ask their counsel and guidance on some sustainable transportation projects and programs that they are eventually interested in funding in this important area of society and technology. Now, it occurred to us that a certain number of you might like not only to know about this but also possibly to make your voice heard. With this in mind - and in the knowledge that our broad community of international colleagues with some much valuable experience and such diverse backgrounds and views of this topics have much to say that can help the organizers - we have tried to figure out a way in which we might be able to convey these views and suggestions to the organizers. To this end, we have just set up a little "virtual conference" support section in the @New Mobility site which you can now reach via http://ecoplan.org/access If you go to the menu and punch June 8th Conference toward the bottom it should pretty much explain itself. And of course if you have other, possibly better ideas for us on any of this, please let us hear from you. I am convinced that this is a great opportunity for the organizers and look forward with real interest to seeing how this works itself out. Eric Britton The Commons ___ technology, economy, society ___ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France TheCommons@ecoplan.org URL www.ecoplan.org Day phone: +331 4326 1323 Mobile: +336 80 96 78 79 Voice/Videoconference/Data +331.4441.6340 (1-4) 24 hour Voicemail/Fax hotline: +331 5301 2896 From et3 at fx2.com Tue May 29 16:49:30 2001 From: et3 at fx2.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:49:30 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: H*elp the Shell Foundation to do good with their new Sustainability In-Reply-To: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F36E@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Planning Sustainable, High Benefit To Cost Transportation. Copyright '01, Daryl Oster, Crystal River FL The automobile and airplane result in prosperity, that is not sustainable. Experts see oil production peaking around 2010 (http://www.hubbertpeak.com). The sustainability movement is based on observations that traditional planning yields: global warming, acid storm runoff, wildlife harm, bad air, noise, accidents, crumbling infrastructure, and congestion. A new quantum leap is needed. Advocating a return to old ways is popular. Rail systems are being proposed as sustainable transportation. Trains are appropriate vehicles to move elephant sized cargo, not humans; http://www.publicpurpose.com displays the failure of rail. Bicycles are sustainable, but weather exposure, meager speed and pathetic capacity limit use; so the car gains ground. The "sustainable communities", and "smart growth" initiatives, are also bids to return to old ways. They oppose social expectations of expanding affluence, limiting success. Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT), Ultra Low Power Vehicles (ULPV), and Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) are sustainable transportation technologies that do not challenge social momentum. ETT is: * FAST - to 500 kph for regional use, (6000 kph international). * CONVENIENT- runs continuously without delays. * EFFICIENT- a human powered ETT can achieve 500kph. * CLEAN- environmentally benign using renewable energy. * SAFE- isolated guideway eliminates collisions in any weather. * ACHIEVABLE- equipment exists to build ETT with common components. * SCALEABLE - capacity can be inexpensively added as demand grows. The automated, silent ETT works by removing resistance. Ultra lightweight, pressurized cabins travel in tubes on thin steel wheels, or P-MagLev. No air is in the tube to cause resistance. Acceleration energy is recovered when slowing.(See http://www.et3.com/intro.htm ) ULPVs are: * Under 5kw to minimize energy use and emissions. * Under 100kg to maximize acceleration, and minimize material use. * Enclosed for usability in varying conditions. * Streamlined to reach highway speeds. * Narrow - double lane capacity with a stripe. * Low cost without subsidies. * fit in ETT capsules for fast, distant travel with personal transport convenience. Automated PRT costs 10% to build and operate verses light rail, and is twice as fast. (http://www.artwerkz.com/h/ links to other PRT here as well) Government and industry must achieve public purpose at minimum cost. Proposals must be compared on a benefit to cost basis; and show capital and energy costs for use factors from 5% up to maximum capacity. This will show relative risk if use fails expectations. Failure to implement high benefit to cost technologies will result in moribund economies, degrading environment, starvation, and war, as people struggle to survive without cheap energy. For a sustainable transportation plan to succeed short term it must offer; improved convenience, capacity, and speed at lower cost. For long term, it must specify systems that offer a tenfold improvement in energy efficiency, and improve environmental conditions with tenfold reduction in emissions. Planning and funding a sustainable transit initiative using the appropriate application of high cost to benefit technologies like ETT, ULPV, and PRT will yield results unobtainable any other way. Best Regards, Daryl Oster, CEO et3.com Inc. ******************************************* Web Site: http://www.et3.com (also .org and .net) e-mail to:et3@fx2.com s-mail to: P.O. Box 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 Phone: (352)797-5415 (Mobile 257-8337) -----Original Message----- From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 7:59 PM To: 'aasust_discuss' Subject: [sustran] FW: H*elp the Shell Foundation to do good with their new Sustainability (this bounced because majordomo thought it was an admin request. So I am forwarding to the list. Paul) ----------- From: eric.britton@ecoplan.org To: "Sustran Resource Centre" Subject: Help the Shell Foundation to do good with their new Sustainability Transportation program Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:24:23 +0200 Dear Friends and Colleagues, This is to invite you to follow and perhaps if you chose participate actively in an international workshop that is to be held here in Paris next week, on June 8th, on the topic of sustainable transportation. The workshop has been called by the Shell Foundation who are bringing together a group of about thirty experts from various places around the world to ask their counsel and guidance on some sustainable transportation projects and programs that they are eventually interested in funding in this important area of society and technology. Now, it occurred to us that a certain number of you might like not only to know about this but also possibly to make your voice heard. With this in mind - and in the knowledge that our broad community of international colleagues with some much valuable experience and such diverse backgrounds and views of this topics have much to say that can help the organizers - we have tried to figure out a way in which we might be able to convey these views and suggestions to the organizers. To this end, we have just set up a little "virtual conference" support section in the @New Mobility site which you can now reach via http://ecoplan.org/access If you go to the menu and punch June 8th Conference toward the bottom it should pretty much explain itself. And of course if you have other, possibly better ideas for us on any of this, please let us hear from you. I am convinced that this is a great opportunity for the organizers and look forward with real interest to seeing how this works itself out. Eric Britton The Commons ___ technology, economy, society ___ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France TheCommons@ecoplan.org URL www.ecoplan.org Day phone: +331 4326 1323 Mobile: +336 80 96 78 79 Voice/Videoconference/Data +331.4441.6340 (1-4) 24 hour Voicemail/Fax hotline: +331 5301 2896 From esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in Tue May 29 23:59:23 2001 From: esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in (ESG) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:29:23 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Urge Indian Environment Ministry to reject Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20010529202806.00a51e40@202.54.12.47> 28 May 2001 Dear Friends, A few weeks ago we revealed how M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE), the key developer of the proposed massive infrastructure/urban development scheme the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMIC), had fraudulently promoted the investment by claiming the involvement of a US infrastructure company M/s Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. We have now written to the Government of Karnataka asking that the agremeent backing the project be cancelled as its fundamental precepts have been violated. Meanwhile the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, which has deferred a final decision on grant of environmental clearance to the project due to the pressure we have all exerted, has now called for a meeting of the Expert Committee reviewing the project on 31 May 2001. A decision will be taken at this meeting regarding the environmental clearance. In anticipation of the Expert Committee meeting, a detailed representation has been submitted urging the Ministry to deny final environmental clearance to this project. This document is available online, along with other documentation, at: . If you would like to endorse this representation, kindly follow the steps outlined at the URL above. Please note that your endorsements will have to preferably reach the Ministry of Environment and Forests by 31 May 2001. In case you do not have internet browsing access, and wish to request the file for endorsement, please send an email to ESG with the Subject: BMIC/MoEF May 2001. The sample letter for endorsement is also enclosed. Kindly send this letter to the addresses mentioned in the To: field and Cc: them as suggested. If possible you may also send in a signed letter by mail or fax (Addresses given below). Please REMEMBER to always include your full contact details to make your letter official. We thank you for your continued support to this campaign. Leo F. Saldanha Coordinator Environment Support Group & Subramaniam Vincent Indiatogether Note: The BMIC Project involves the development of 5 new townships to cross-subsidise the building of an Expressway between Bangalore and Mysore cities (a distance of 140 kms). Viable Public transport opportunities have been dismissed to promote this investment. 21,000 acres of land will be acquired for the project, which by some estimates may potentially displace about 200,000 people in this densely populated region. Large amounts of water will be drawn from River Cauvery to support the lavish lifestyles anticipated in these new townships, depriving existing cities and agricultural areas of their due share. The townships will include luxurious housing projects, golf resorts (dubiously called "eco-tourism" project), corporate centres, entertainment centres, etc. This concept of real-estate cross-subsidising infrastructure development has never been tried before, and is slated to be a model for India. Read more on this at the site mentioned above. LETTER FOR ENDORSEMENT To: "Secretary, MoEF" , "Spl. Secretary (IA), MoEF" , Cc: "Indian Environment Minister" , "Chief Minister of Karnataka" , "ESG" , Senior officials in the Ministry of Environment and forests (New Delhi), I am aware that the MEF's expert committee on infrastructure is holding a meeting on May 31, 2001 in New Delhi on the issue of environmental clearance for the BMIC project. In support of detailed representation made recently by Environment Support Group, Bangalore, I wish to bring the following facts to your attention, with the specific intention of requesting you NOT to accord environmental clearance to this project. 1. The project developer, M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE), has committed fraud by wrongly claiming the involvement of M/s Vanasse Hangen Brustlin of USA (VHB) as a Consortium and member of the Company in order to promote the investment. Considering that the parent MOU and all subsequent agreements and project documentation are based on this claim, and the same is not true per evidence enclosed, the entire project and all statutory clearances provided thus far are void ab initio. 2. The EIA prepared by M/s MECON on the BMIC project for NICE is vague, based on incorrect information, and replete with partial or no information on several critical impacts of the project. Most importantly it includes the claim of the involvement of VHB, not just as a member of the Consortium but the Company itself. Such an EIA is in fundamental violation of many or all provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. It should therefore not form the basis of review for environmental clearance of the project. 3. Human Rights of citizens have been violated by the Karnataka Government in conducting the Environmental Public Hearings that form the basis of the No Objection Certificate granted by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to the project on 11 August 2000 (No. KSPCB/CFE/DEO-2/AEO-2/2000-2001). Complaints have been filed with the National Human Rights Commission on this matter and the case is under investigation (Case No. 242/10/2000-2001). In addition, the Ulsoor Gate Police Station, Bangalore are also investigating the complaint against Mr. Sanaulla, then District Commissioner (Bangalore Urban) who chaired the Pubic Hearing at Bangalore on 5th July 2000. Consequently, it is obligatory for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to await the result of these investigations and decisions thereof before proceeding on any matter regarding the project. 4. The review with regard to the environmental clearance for the project has been done with very poor rigour and under pressure from the Government of Karnataka and NICE. Therefore, it would be essential for the Ministry to constitute a special investigation by its Expert Committee to the project impact area. Such an initiative, given adequate prior public notice and access to public domain documents, will help elicit views from the affected public. This would also enable the clearance authorities to clearly understand and appreciate the impacts of this massive urban infrastructure development project, the first such in India, perhaps the world. In light of the above I urge that the Indian Ministry for Environment and Forests, reject and dispose the present application for environmental clearance of NICE for the BMIC project. Very truly yours Full Name Full Address (Any other affiliations, optional) Mailing Address: Union Minister Mr. T. R. Baalu Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhavan CGO Complex Lodi Road New Delhi 110 001 Tel: 91-11-4231727 x 424. Fax: 91-11-4362222 Chief Minister Mr. S. M. Krishna Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore 560 001 Tel: 91-80-2253454 Fax: 91-80-2200640 Environment Support Group (R) S-3, Rajashree Apartments 18/57, 1st Main, S. R. K. Gardens Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore 560 041. INDIA Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP) Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Thu May 31 09:57:15 2001 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:15 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: Earth Day 2001 celebrations involved millions! Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB0B86F385@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg> Here is a brief summary of Earth Day events relevant to this list. -----Original Message----- From: World Wide [mailto:worldwide@earthday.net] Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2001 8:01 To: Recipient List Suppressed:; Subject: Earth Day 2001 celebrations involved millions! Dear friends, Thank you for being part of Earth Day 2001, which was an extraordinary success. Millions of people joined in thousands of activities in almost every country on Earth, confirming that Earth Day is one of the most widely celebrated events in the world. For those of you with web access, check out the Earth Day 2001 Worldwide report at: http://www.earthday.net/events/2001.stm Here are just a few highlights from Earth Day 2001. CLEAN ENERGY: Across the planet, people raised their voices in a united demand for clean energy. In Tanzania, hundreds of people rallied to raise awareness of Mt Kilimanjaro's melting snowcaps. Turkey unveiled a public transport station powered by solar energy. Clean energy events were also held in China, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Tajikistan, Guatemala, Uruguay, Colombia, Nicaragua, Buenos Aires, Canada and USA. EARTH CAR FREE DAY: Earth Day 2001 established the first ever Earth Car Free Day. Millions of people in 30 countries participated in bike rallies, street festivals, and car-free programs. Hong Kong hosted a Clear the Air mask parade and a huge outdoor Clean Air festival. Five cities in Bangladesh blocked off major avenues to two-stroke vehicles. Every city in Korea held concerts, exhibitions and bicycle rallies in streets blocked from traffic. Major car-free actions or bike rallies were also held in Sri Lanka, Canada, Czech Republic, India, Taiwan, Nepal, Indonesia, South Korea, and many other countries. For more details of the many Earth Day events and actions which occurred across the planet, please visit www.earthday.net/dir/event.asp ***************************** Whatever you did for Earth Day, you are part of a powerful force that spans the globe and stands for what is beautiful and just. Thank you for being part of the Earth Day 2001 celebrations! Together, who says we can't change the world? For the Earth, Earth Day Network Worldwide Team: Serryn Janson Vickery J. Prongay Helen Couture Rodriguez Sierra James Leigh-Anne Havemann ***************************** EARTH DAY is 22 April. HELP SPREAD THE EARTH DAY NETWORK... Invite your friends and colleagues to become involved in Earth Day. They can zubscribe to this list by sending a message to worldwide@earthday.net with the word "zubscribe" in the subject line. If you would like to stop receiving this bulletin, please reply to this message and put the word "unzubscribe" in the subject line. This email is also being sent in Spanish and French. Earth Day Network 811 First Avenue, Suite 454 Seattle, WA 98104 USA Tel: + 1.206.876.2002 Fax: + 1.206.876.2015 worldwide@earthday.net http://www.earthday.net